What does "well regulated militia" mean???

S

Sigma 40 Blaster

New member
After reading Tennessee Gentlemen's post about the correlation between the Heller case and NFA items I noted that I saw several quotes about the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A. I didn't see much "interpretation" about the first part "A well regulated militia".

The word regulated to me implies that some limited and high level federal laws might not be unconstitutional. Then again the ambiguity of "well regulated" doesn't really mean much does it?

Does it mean a certain level of qualification (like qualifying in the military with handguns and long guns) or some other minimum amount of training or certification?

If (and it looks like WHEN) the ruling that firearms ownership is an individual right I think some will attempt to exploit this phrase more than they already are (as if they aren't already).

If this question is redundant I'm sorry, I looked through a few pages of search results and nothing popped out at me. I'm interested to see what everyone thinks.
 
regulated

the simplest vision I have is the militia is under some direction and control towards a common good. Most likely that implies under the direction of those we elected to office at various levels. That eliminates every wacko who wants to go off in a tangent doing their own thing.
 
What is a "Well Regulated" clock? One that has all its proper parts and works as required, or one that has laws governing the use of a device made for the measurement of time?

Back in the day, IIRC, well regulated militia meant (and means), a group of armed citizens equipped with the proper tools, trained in the use of those tools who train and work together as required.

Or so I've been told and tend to believe. I could be wrong.
 
Well trained, and outfitted I believe it meant in the 18th century. Now it means over regulated by the Government to make it near useless for anything but taxing. Imagine if we where fighting the war today. We would lose badly. :D
 
I always heard it was "precisely timed" as in a well regulated clock. In those days successful armies were supposed to be able to march load and fire in coordination. They played music and sang to keep in step and their firing orders were precisely timed. You couldn't have Brigade A marching over the hill from the left in 23 minutes and Brigade B marching over the hill from the right in 27 minutes and expect to win the battle. All had to be done in a coordinated manner.
 
When my gastric system works as it should, I am well-regulated, or regular. When it is not, look out!!!:eek:

Well-regulated = Functioning properly:)
 
OK. Then how do we reconcile "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed"?

I understand the concept of army and militia has drastically changed in a couple of hundred years...what implications do you think this has on our right to keep and bear arms today?

I'm not asking these questions with an attempt to be funny or difficult, I'm really curious to see what everyone thinks.
 
Someone has told me that during those times, well regulated cetainly did not mean what we normally think of what the word regulated means in modern times. Instead, regulated then meant "well equipped".

That definition makes a lot more sense, and if I can find any period texts which would suggest that, I would gladly post it.

But yes, the larger point is that many Americans don't even realize how many changes the English language has gone through since those times, and concerning the 2A, everyone believes that "regulated" means strictly controlled, supervised, etc.

Just like using the word "want", if you want something now, it means that you desire it. But in those days, wanting something usually meant that that is what you were lacking.

EDIT: I found something from another forum where somewhere posted an excerpt of a work which proves that "well regulated" does not mean highly controlled, and supervised.

"In September 1755, George Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia militia, upon a frustrating and futile attempt to call up the militia to respond to a frontier Indian attack":[6]

"...he experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups, perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper support. And what added to his mortification was, that the laws gave him no power to correct these evils, either by enforcing discipline, or compelling the indolent and refractory to their duty" ... "The militia system was suited for only to times of peace. It provided for calling out men to repel invasion; but the powers granted for effecting it were so limited, as to be almost inoperative.[6]"

I take the view that it means well equipped, because if I am to understand it correctly, there was no standing army like we have now, the militia, which are just us citizens played a larger role in defeating the British than the Armed Forces.

So, the answers given by the previous posters doesn't seem to fit as snugly in that context.
 
The easiest way to understand the word, regulate, is to read the definition in Webster's 1828 dictionary.
1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.

2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.

3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.
Click to expand...
Look closely at the #1 definition, above (Today however, the #3 definition above, is the #1 definition in many dictionaries. That's how much has changed - and this change had occured by 1911. See this post).

A well regulated militia was a militia that was equipped with the necessary accoutrements. It was assumed that the people who formed the militia were trained as to the use of their firearms.

It did not mean that these people knew close order drill, tactics or strategy. It did not mean that there were rules or restrictions they had to abide by, as a militia body.
Sigma 40 Blaster said:
OK. Then how do we reconcile "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed"?
Click to expand...
There is nothing to actually reconcile.

The phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a preamble. In this, it simply states one reason for enumerating the right, which follows as the operational clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

INFRINGE, v.t. infrinj''. [L. infringo; in and frango,to break. See Break.]

1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used - but by 1911, it was the 2nd defintion of the main entry.]
Click to expand...
As an originalist, I believe that the Constitution means what it meant to the people at the time it was ratified.

It is unfortunate that the Courts have at times, placed the current meanings on the words, as it changes the nature of what was understood.
 
"A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes shall not be infringed."

Some people would use the above sentence to argue that only pepperoni pizzas could own tomatoes, and that the tomatoes have to be well-crafted.

:)

The important point: no matter what "well-regulated" means, it describes the militia. It does not refer to either the arms or to the people whose rights are at issue.

pax
 
Justice Scalia said it perfectly;

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed.

The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
OK. Then how do we reconcile "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed"?
Click to expand...

As I said above, "well regulated" refers to the militia. The militia should be equipped and prepared to respond properly when the country is threatened.

"Shall not be infringed" refers to the right of owning and carrying weapons. Nothing should nibble away at that broad right.

Incidentally, look at Amendment Three: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." If the Founders had intended to allow any infringements (infringement means nibbling away at the edges of the broad right) -- they had the language for that already to hand. It's right there in the Third Amendment: "but in a manner to be prescribed by law." While this doesn't directly address the militia/non-militia question, it does go right to the heart of the entire gun-control mindset.

pax
 
At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, the term "well regulated" meant well trained, well equipped, etc. It did not mean lots and lots of laws.
 
See 4. below:

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
reg·u·late (rěg'yə-lāt') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates

1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regulate
 
glock19xdsc, you simply can't use a modern dictionary to point out what a word meant 200 years ago.

My point? You want to know what how people defined a word in 1789? You need to look at dictionaries of the time. Hence my use of the 1828 Webster's.
 
You need to look at the purpose behind the writing of the second amendment for your answer.

The entire Bill of Rights was adopted to calm the fears of the anti-Federalists about the inevitable course of any government, namely to amass power at the expense of the people.

The anti-Federalists particularly feared that any standing army would eventually become something akin to the "special" or "select" militia’s extent in Europe. In that system, exclusive of any vestige of the guarantee found in the English Bill of Rights, only members of these militias were permitted ownership of arms.

The second amendment was written to ensure that no standing army would ever become the sole repository of arms in our society.

The term: "well regulated" is best construed to mean: "under tight civilian control."

This was to be accomplished by virtue the militia being composed of as broad a spectrum of the people as possible. Therefore the ownership of arms by the people was recognized to be a fundamental right, one not to be infringed.
 
Gun owners that know how to shoot and can defend themselves. That was the intended resource for a militia. My understanding of the National Guard's status in this debate is that they are the current "standing militia."

But in a time of great need, the government may need to quickly recruit additional arms bearing individuals. This is where the 2nd amendment comes into play to my way of thinking.

What if we suddenly had a proven need to post a large number of armed individuals at the northern border to stop terrorist infiltration?

How about the state and local law enforcement? They may suddenly be in need of large number of armed indiviuals also for the above reason.

This would be the current operative use for this second amendment provision.

Also, the second amendment gives the "well-regulated militia" as a prime example without any hint of restriction attaching to the second part of the sentence. "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." is a separate statement in my reading.

The intent that the right stated was only for a well-regulated militia would easily have been made clear, it was not.
 
At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, the term "well regulated" meant well trained, well equipped, etc. It did not mean lots and lots of laws.
Click to expand...


I disagree. My reading is that the term had nothing whatsoever to do with the militia being well drilled, or equipped with a well trained professional NCO corps, or with an advanced manual of arms.

The term was meant to mean: "under tight civilian control."
 
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed.
Click to expand...


Scalia has an unfortunate tendency to ignore the legislative intent behind a law and engage in facial analysis in construing its scope. He's arriving at the correct conclusion here, by the use of a seriously flawed analysis.
 
Ahh .. but legislative intent at the outset was to let the guns stay in the hands of the people. And the framers said in the amendment no part of government can infringe on the right.

Removal of the right is justified by trial action, just like we remove a person's freedom when he is imprisoned.

Unfortunately the right has been removed from the entire populace without challenge in many places now.
Thus we now have lawbreakers assaulting & robbing under threat of great bodily harm or death with gun, knifepoint, or strongarm tactics. They know of the law and are without fear of a law-abiding person nearby being able to stop them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top